Ignorance of the Law

[Jim Sr]

Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse, unless you work in law enforcement​

But what happens when law enforcement officials don't know the law? What happens when they illegally detain, arrest, and charge you even though you've done nothing wrong? Unlike you, their ignorance doesn't result in arrest or jail. And unless the violation is pretty egregious, they're unlikely to be punished for it.

Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse

 

[eadgbe194]

Good article, thanks

 

[joppaj]

Sounds to me more like a problem at the DA's office, but I guess it's more politically correct to accuse an out of control police force of oppressing these poor innocent truth seeking citizens.

 

[drking2]

I don't see where this has anything to do with the officer, but does have a great deal to do with the SA not knowing the law. Yes, it was bad how it went down, the officer should have called the SA and been advised its ok. He wasn't, he acted on information he received from a source that should have been knowledgeable.

To me, the SA should be in hock for giving the wrong info.

 

[joppaj]

I don't see where this has anything to do with the officer, but does have a great deal to do with the SA not knowing the law. Yes, it was bad how it went down, the officer should have called the SA and been advised its ok. He wasn't, he acted on information he received from a source that should have been knowledgeable.

To me, the SA should be in hock for giving the wrong info.

I guess this was my issue as well. If I'm not sure on a legal point and I call the office of the prosecutor having jurisdiction, the prosecutor tells me that it is indeed the law, than I have acted in good faith. I realize that right now this is a hot button issue so Libertarian groups are looking for it far and wide but I wish they would quit trying to foster a hostile environment between the police and the public.

 

[MDMOUNTAINEER]

Oh no, not another one.

If the officer acted in good faith, called the DA who is essentially his "Boss" in circumstances such as these, and acted accordingly, I don't find fault with the officer's actions at all.

I do agree that if a lawyer must go to school for many years to get their JD and still specialize in a certain type of law which they choose to practice, because there are just too many laws on the books for one attorney to really "know" them all, it's ridiculous for the common (read uneducated in all matters of law) citizen to have that type of knowledge as well.

Certain laws are common sense, ie; rape, robbery, murder, assault, even speeding, etc. Some are completely asinine. But all of that is legislative, unfortunately the bigger our government has gotten, the more they legislate, and shit rolls down hill.

Bottom line, cop acted in good faith, even called someone who is recognizably higher up the food chain, and somebody got effed. Sucks, if anyone is to blame it's the DA.

 

[MDMOUNTAINEER]

I guess this was my issue as well. If I'm not sure on a legal point and I call the office of the prosecutor having jurisdiction, the prosecutor tells me that it is indeed the law, than I have acted in good faith. I realize that right now this is a hot button issue so Libertarian groups are looking for it far and wide but I wish they would quit trying to foster a hostile environment between the police and the public.

We musta been typing at the same time

 

[joppaj]

We musta been typing at the same time

Yup.

Man I wish I'd had a spare $500 for that 1895C you sold...

 

[gamer_jim]

Suing Birbeck isn't likely an option for Kelly, either. Prosecutors enjoy an even stronger protection called absolute immunity. Under absolute immunity, there is virtually nothing a prosecutor can do in the course of his job that would subject him to a lawsuit.

He should have sued the DA, or State, not he cop. If Birbeck's job failure resulted in a loss of civil rights then I bet the DA's grounds for immunity are shaky at best. He needs to get a better lawyer if he wants to fight this.

 

[BeltBuckle]

First of all, I am not a cop basher. I recognise that cops have one of the most important, difficult, underpaid and thankless jobs in our society, and I appreciate what they do. However... they are human, and don't always get it right. But because of the aforementioned, I think in general they deserve a little slack.

But given that Pennsylvania courts have ruled that police officers in the performance of their duty have no expectation of privacy, I think that should be widely understood by all LEO in the state. I do agree that the officer's call to the DA is at least partially exculpatory... but I think common sense also comes into play here. The Officer was already recording the conversation. What reasonable basis could he have for objecting to the citizen recording it also? In my book he made a fundamental error in choosing to construe that as a challenge rather than as the exercise of a fundamental right. It looks to me more like a "Mine is bigger" move than anything required by the situation (though I concede that may be unfair -- I wasn't there...).

To me the First Amendment is pretty fundamental, and I agree with the Founding Fathers that any encroachment on it is automatically suspect. It is very high up on the list of things that LEO is sworn to protect and defend, and it is most unfortunate when that is lost sight of.

Having said all that, I don't know what the right resolution of the situation is here. I don't think the cop's actions deserve a severe sanction -- I think he erred, probably for a mix of reasons, some understandable and some unfortunate, but I would still cut him a good deal of slack (though not completely). I do think the citizen should be compensated for being wrongfully arrested, detained, and injured (here's a band-aid and a lollipop), and the proper place to focus the responsibility for that is on the ignorant lawyers who gave the officer the wrong advice... but they happen to be immune under PA law. And while in this case that is unfortunate, in general that is not an entirely unwise policy, seems to me.

Looks like a gordion knot.

I hope the damn lawyers corrected their ignorance. I'm pretty sure the Officer will not again bust somebody for filming him at work... and the citizen might just be well advised not to make a big deal out of sticking cameras in the faces of officers at work unless there is really something at stake that would be worth the cost if things escalate. My 0.02.

 

[joppaj]

I can't argue a word of that BeltBuckle. I will say that one thing severly lacking, at least my PD, is regular legal updates. Courts toss out laws pretty regularly and it is incumbant on the courts/ prosecutors/ police training sections to keep the guys in the field up to speed. I think that's a big blind spot for a lot of folks.

 

[Splitter]

Yeah, the biggest problem here lays with the SA office. The cop could have been less...officious...and not made a big deal out of the recording after the guy turned off the camera. Then again, the guys in the car may have been acting like jerks to the cop and he returned the gesture. Dunno.

The problem here is the SA office not knowing the law but an even bigger problem is how citizens are prevented from suing the state and its' officials in so many instances. While we already have an overly litigious society, there really is little incentive for the stat's officials to get their jobs right.

People say no big deal about how the guy was treated. I would remind that he did spend a night in jail. While I have never been to jail, I would have to think that for the normal person that is a pretty traumatic event.

Splitter

 

[Ab_Normal]

Ignorance of the law is an excuse. Most lawmakers don't even know what's in the laws they pass. obamacare anybody?

 

[MDMOUNTAINEER]

Ignorance of the law is an excuse. Most lawmakers don't even know what's in the laws they pass. obamacare anybody?

You'll have to pass that bill to see whats in it